Burnham V. Superior Court of California - Justice Brennan's Opinion

Justice Brennan's Opinion

Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., in an opinion joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, and Sandra Day O'Connor, concurred that California could constitutionally exercise jurisdiction over Dennis Burnham because he had been served with process while visiting the state. However, Brennan rejected Scalia's contention that the long history of allowing transient jurisdiction was sufficient to resolve the case. According to Brennan, the Court's decision in Shaffer v. Heitner required that all methods of obtaining jurisdiction must be evaluated according to contemporary notions of due process.

Brennan acknowledged that while not dispositive, the historical pedegree of transient jurisdiction was relevant in evaluating its constitutionality, because it provided potential defendants with notice that visiting a state could lead to their being subject to jurisdiction on a lawsuit in that state. While voluntarily present in a state, an individual avails himself of benefits provided by that state. Moreover, developments in modern communications and transportation make it much less burdensome than previously for a non-resident to defend himself or herself in another jurisdiction. Procedural devices such as the doctrine of forum non conveniens are available in a case where litigating in the forum would be genuinely burdensome. Brennan concluced that "or these reasons, as a rule the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant based on his voluntary presence in the forum will satisfy the requirements of due process."